Hi Hannes, One draft is esp, the other is ikev2, I tend to think it would be better to have two separate documents.
Validation of specification SCHC will be supported by implementations and I am aware of two ongoing implementations based on openschc. I am also aware of 2 implementations that do not rely on SCHC. One implementation on contiki and one in python (not public). https://bitbucket.org/sylvain_www/diet-esp-contiki/src/master/ We are working on an implementation. What is not completely clear to me now is how we will be able to have/make public implementations for linux implementation and potentially *Swan projects. It is a bit too early for now, but I am hoping to have a path in the next coming months. As far as I know ROHC is still used, but I do not know how ROHC is specifically used for IPsec traffic. Yours, Daniel On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 7:12 AM Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig= [email protected]> wrote: > Shouldn't the two drafts be merged? > > > Who of the authors is going to implement the specs? > > > Ciao > Hannes > > > @Carsten: I have not been following the ROHC work after standardization > was completed. Was it actually used? Is it still used? > > > Am 30.11.2023 um 14:09 schrieb Carsten Bormann: > > As a co-author of draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp, I do support this work > (as well as the accompanying draft-mglt-ipsecme-ikev2-diet-esp-extension) > and plan to continue working on it. > > > > We did the equivalent of these two drafts for ROHC in RFC 5856 to 5858. > > The current work is an obvious missing link for SCHC that needs to be > filled in, just as we did for ROHC in 2010. > > > > Grüße, Carsten > > > > > >> On 2023-11-27, at 19:33, Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> This is two week adoption call for draft-mglt-ipsecme-diet-esp. If you > >> support adopting this document as a working group document for IPsecME > >> to work on, and then at some point publish this as an RFC, send > >> comments to this list. > >> > >> This adoption call ends 2023-12-13. > >> > >> Note, that I do want to see people saying that they think this > >> document is worth of working on, and that they plan to review and > >> comment on it. If I only get one or two people (including authors :-) > >> to say they support this work, then there is no point of work on this > >> in WG. > >> -- > >> [email protected] > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > IPsec mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
